Max Scherzer is wrong about the MLB luxury tax, which is meant to serve the cause of competitive balance.
MLB is one of the only major American sports leagues without a salary cap in place. The players and MLBPA would rather keep it this way, and the owners knew not to bother bringing it up in the first place in negotiations.
MLB owners have enough reasons not to spend — a salary cap would simply provide them with another.
So, sure, no salary cap. While owners have been stubborn in their lack of movement on many issues, the luxury tax is one of the only tools MLB has at its disposal to ensure competitive balance in terms of payroll. If fans and players could force owners to spend more money — hence with a salary floor — that could be a more effective measure. But that’ll have to wait until the next round of CBA talks.
Max Scherzer doesn’t necessarily understand its purpose.
Max Scherzer: Luxury tax serves as a salary cap
The CBA doesn’t serve as a cap just because the Padres are outspending their market for a few seasons. Over a third of baseball failed to reach a $100 million payroll last season, an overall depressing number which impacts competitive balance.
Much of that is on owners failing to spend a respectable amount of money on players. Instead, they are incentivized not to spend thanks to the luxury tax, which provides money to small-market teams via a tax on teams which spend over the so-called luxury tax number, whatever that may be.
A simple solution for baseball would be a respectable salary floor, one which forces owners to spend on the free agent market and via their own payroll, rather than a system which incentivizes them to pinch pennies. Even the players should be on board with that — but good luck convincing owners.